Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with two road traffic offences recorded against her and the enforcement action it took to recover the charges. There was fault by the Council for its poor record keeping and for providing Ms X with confusing information about the road traffic offences. This caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with two road traffic offences and the enforcement action it took to recover the charges for both road traffic offences.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her financial loss, distress, confusion, frustration and time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2021. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
10. I sent Ms X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

11. The Traffic Management Act 2004 governs the procedure which must be followed by councils issuing penalty charge notices.
12. Councils must issue a vehicle owner with a penalty charge notice (PCN) with details of the contravention. The owner has a right to challenge/appeal the PCN.
13. Where a debtor fails to pay a PCN, the Council will register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and ask the TEC to issue a warrant of execution (‘a warrant’).
14. A council can then send the warrant to a certified Enforcement Agent. The agent will send a Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. This will again request payment and warn that, if payment is not received, the agent may take further recovery action.
15. When the debt is passed to an enforcement company there are two stages:

• Compliance stage: Upon receipt of the instruction from the local authority, the enforcement company must send a Notice of Enforcement giving the debtor a minimum of seven clear days to pay before a visit can be made. The debtor can make a payment proposal following the Notice of Enforcement. The enforcement company adds a compliance stage fee of £75 to the debt.
• Enforcement stage: If the debtor does not pay during the compliance stage or they default on a payment arrangement, the enforcement company will pass their account to an individual Enforcement Agent (EA). The EA will visit the debtor’s property for the purpose of taking control of their goods. At the time of the visit, an enforcement fee of £235 is added to the debt.

Key events

Road Traffic Offence 1

16. The Council recorded a road traffic offence that happened in March 2021 against Ms X. The Council said it requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle from DVLA.
17. The Council said it sent a penalty charge notice (PCN) to Ms X for the road traffic offence.
18. Between March and May 2021, the Council said it sent a charge certificate and order for recovery to Ms X regarding the PCN. The Council then moved to the compliance stage and passed Ms X’s case to enforcement agents (EA).
19. In January 2022, the Council sent Ms X a notice of enforcement (NOE). It added the compliance stage fee of £75 to her outstanding £203 PCN charges. The Council said when Ms X made no contact, it progressed her case to the enforcement stage.
20. The EA visited Ms X’s property on 15 and 25 February 2022 to recover the outstanding PCN charges but was unsuccessful. The enforcement stage fee of £235 was added for the first visit. This meant the total outstanding PCN owed by Ms X was £513.
21. On 14 October 2022, the EA visited Ms X’s property and recovered the total outstanding PCN charges of £513.
22. In March 2023, the Council informed Ms X it noticed there was a £203 overpayment on its system relating to this PCN. The Council refunded Ms X with the overpayment.
23. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained Ms X had directly paid the £203 to the Council after it had started enforcement action for the PCN. It confirmed the payment was stuck in its system because direct payments could not be allocated after cases had been passed to EAs. The Council confirmed it refunded Ms X with the £203 when it discovered the overpayment.
24. The Council in its response to our enquiries was unable to provide us with the PCN and the statutory documents relating to the first road traffic offence. It only provided us with evidence of the NOE. It confirmed copies of the documents had been removed from the Council’s system.
25. Subsequently, the Council provided us with additional evidence after it conducted an initial review of its system. The Council provided an audit history of the first road traffic offence to show it issued Ms X with the PCN, charge certificate and order for recovery between March and May 2021. The Council said it appeared the data cleanse on the first PCN was a one-off incident and that no further cases had been affected so far.
26. The Council acknowledged it should have been able to provide copies of the statutory documents. The Council said in view of this, it would offer Ms X a total refund of £448. This consists of £138 (additional PCN fee and registration fee), £75 (compliance fee) and £235 (enforcement fee).

Road Traffic Offence 2

27. The Council charged Ms X for a road traffic contravention which happened in July 2021. The Council sent the PCN to Ms X after it requested the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle from DVLA.
28. Between August and November 2021, the Council sent a charge certificate and order for recovery relating to this PCN to Ms X. The Council then moved to the compliance stage and passed Ms X’s case to the EA.
29. In February 2022, the Council sent Ms X an NOE and added the compliance stage fee of £75 to her outstanding PCN charges.
30. On 14 October 2022, the EA visited Ms X’s property and recovered the total outstanding PCN charges of £514. This included the £235 enforcement stage fee.

Complaint

31. Ms X formally complained to the Council about how it dealt with and recovered both PCNs. Ms X said she did not receive prior letters about the PCNs and no prior notice of the EA’s visit in October 2022.
32. The Council in its responses to Ms X’s complaint said:

• it followed the correct procedures with its enforcement actions and that it sent the required statutory documents to Ms X’s address
• it sent Ms X copies of the NOEs prior to the EA’s visit
• the NOEs advised Ms X to make the outstanding payments in full within 14 days of the respective letters for both PCNs
• there was no legal requirement to send any further notice of the EA visit where no payment was received after the 14 days’ timescale.

33. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
34. Ms X maintained there was no supplementary information on both NOEs, and she submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request to the Council. Further to the FOI request, the Council confirmed it held no PCNs under both PCN reference numbers.
35. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses and how it dealt with both road traffic offences/PCNs. She made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Road Traffic Offence 1

36. We expect councils to show a paper trail and retain copies of legal documents to evidence they have followed the proper legal process for enforcement. The Council was unable to provide us with copies of the statutory documents it issued Ms X for non-payment of the first PCN prior to its issuance of the NOE. This was fault.
37. However, the Council was later able to provide us with an audit history of the PCN it recorded against Ms X in March 2021. The audit history showed the Council issued Ms X with the PCN, charge certificate and order for recovery. On balance, therefore, I consider the Council followed statutory guidance and procedure in relation to this PCN.

Road Traffic Offence 2

38. There was no fault by the Council with how it dealt with the second road traffic offence and the enforcement action it took to recover the £514 PCN. The Council followed statutory guidance and procedure to recover the total charges.

Conclusion

39. In addition to the fault identified above, I criticise the Council for its lack of clarity and confusing information it provided about Ms X’s road traffic offences and the PCNs. The Council informed Ms X it held no PCNs under both PCN references following her FOI request to it. This was fault and it caused uncertainty and confusion to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the Council’s faults as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• refund Ms X with the £448 additional charges she incurred for the first road traffic offence
• review Ms X’s case to see why the data was cleansed on the first penalty charge notice while data was retained on the second penalty charge notice when both offences happened at a similar time. This is to confirm whether the data cleanse was a one off or if there is some error in the Council’s system. Provide the Ombudsman with a short-written summary of the outcome of the review
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of keeping a paper trail and retaining copies of all statutory documents the Council issues to motorists in relation to road traffic offences. This is to ensure the Council can evidence it follows the proper legal process for enforcement of penalty charge notices
• remind relevant staff of the importance of providing clear and accurate information to motorists about the penalty charge notices the Council records against them.

41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find evidence of some faults by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman